Thread: does our vessel "deserve" to be fired upon?

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I'm glad I know where you stand. Would you support action against a nation carrying out ethnic cleansing or genocide within it's own borders?

If the shoe was on the other foot I would be pissed, sure. But ya know what? It isn't on the other foot. I can understand their position, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it nor does it mean I can't take action against it. If we followed that rule the word would be an even darker place. Dicks, pussies, assholes and all that. Seeing injustice, and doing nothing about it despite being perfectly able, is cowardice.

If there were a absolute ethnic cleansing going on, by a nation, I would support going after that gov't with the full force of our mighty military. But on the other hand, if some ethnic group or religious group armed themselves and sought to overthrow a gov't, and then that gov't went after that group with everything they had, I would keep my nose out of it. Situations matter to me.

But do we go after all ethnic cleansing, or just in particular areas that we deem important to the US? Are we deeply principled, or only partially principled?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Chassisman,

i don't really think that be accurate, oh mighty Chass. i remember readin' a book a few years back, i think 'twas called "Inside the Emerald City", 'bout the green zone in iraq. the boneheaded ways the Bush administration doled out millions to politically connected folk who were clueless as to how to perform thar "duties". it reads kinda like a tragedy.

i don't sense any 'o that kind 'o profiteerin' goin' on. all i see be the "secret" work 'o our operatives tryin' to topple a sovereign country's regime. imma fine with that, too, i guess....i mean, i know thats how things work, but i can't understand how our people can be outraged if thar be terrorist blowback from these kind 'o endeavors.

- MeadHallPirate

- - - Updated - - -



ahoy Thorhammer,

hasn't this been goin' on Africa (particularly west africa) fer quite some time now?

- MeadHallPirate

Sure it has, which makes us only partially principled, which is no principle at all. Our principle lies only in self interest and not any sort of moral principle.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Soot,

but has our nation not been the instigator in these kinda proxy wars fer quite some time now?

at the very least, we've been a willin' and joyous participant.

- MeadHallPirate

I think a great many nations can be described as willing participants.

If I'm a willing participant, and you're a willing participant, and sooner or later I felt that you cross a line and I decided, as a result, to start raining down 100kt MIRVs from orbit, well, who's the fucking idiot there?

I'm not arguing that our participation in these stupid games is "right" and I'm not arguing that Syria's (and much of the rest of the world's) participation is "right".

But right or wrong everyone, willingly, is participating.

Eventually, inevitably, push is going to come to shove.

When it does, the side with the bigger stick is going to win.

That doesn't make the side with the bigger stick the good guy or the bad guy, remember, everyone was a willing participant, it just makes him the guy with the bigger stick.

In a crowd where everyone has blood on his hands, and despite the fact that the United States' hands aren't even the bloodiest given the fact that we're the strongest, it's kind of myopic to try to paint the United States as the bad guy, which essentially is what you're attempting to do.

You know that I'm pragmatic enough that I don't go in for all that "Mom, Country, and Apple Pie" bullshit about how the United States is the greatest country that ever was or ever will be because of "insert inane reason here".

I agree that we do some pretty shitty things.

But we do some pretty shitty things in a landscape where damn near everybody is doing some pretty shitty things.

I don't see us as the de facto bad guy just because we're the Goliath and not the David.

Originally Posted by soot

In a crowd where everyone has blood on his hands, and despite the fact that the United States' hands aren't even the bloodiest given the fact that we're the strongest, it's kind of myopic to try to paint the United States as the bad guy, which essentially is what you're attempting to do...

...I don't see us as the de facto bad guy just because we're the Goliath and not the David.

ahoy Soot,

imma not really tryin' to paint me own country as the villian, matey.

i'm just sayin' that when David hurls a stone from his sling and takes out one 'o our eyes, we shouldn't really be too surprised or outraged that it happened. at the very least, we can't claim "aggrieved party" status.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Soot,

imma not really tryin' to paint me own country as the villian, matey.

i'm just sayin' that when David hurls a stone from his sling and takes out one 'o our eyes, we shouldn't really be too surprised or outraged that it happened. at the very least, we can't claim "aggrieved party" status.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

I think that's fair.

Likewise, I don't think that Syria gets to claim that they're aggrieved when we identify the group of people that they're rounding up in Homs and then shelling with field artillery and offer those people weapons to defend themselves.

If you don't want the civilized world to come to the aid of your citizens then don't turn military grade munitions on your people indiscriminantly.

I don't really care whether you're a democracy, a monarchy, a socialist republic, or a dictatorship, the purpose of government is to serve the people.

That isn't always going to work out in 100% textbook fashion. It doesn't in the United States and it doesn't in Syria. But I think there are different degress of "not serving the people".

You can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time, but that doesn't make it okay to kill the people that you've displeased with indirect fire.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Thorhammer,

hasn't this been goin' on Africa (particularly west africa) fer quite some time now?

- MeadHallPirate

Yep

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

If there were a absolute ethnic cleansing going on, by a nation, I would support going after that gov't with the full force of our mighty military. But on the other hand, if some ethnic group or religious group armed themselves and sought to overthrow a gov't, and then that gov't went after that group with everything they had, I would keep my nose out of it. Situations matter to me.

But do we go after all ethnic cleansing, or just in particular areas that we deem important to the US? Are we deeply principled, or only partially principled?

But not the support of a rebellion which grew out of government forces firing upon peaceful protestors?

I don't know. I don't pretend to speak for my entire country, nor do I pretend I have all the facts.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Wagner,

if ye wish to cheerlead fer yer "Chosen One", yer "Golden Boy", thats fine me friend. plenty 'o room fer all opinions on USPO, even Obama apologists like yerself.

Yes, supporting the removal of a government that has begun slaughtering its own mostly defenseless people is cheerleading.

:rolleyes:

We don't know who the rebels are and the Arabs don't have a good record of replacing tyrants with lovers of democracy.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

We don't know who the rebels are and the Arabs don't have a good record of replacing tyrants with lovers of democracy.

Does it matter if they're lovers of democracy?

It's not like we're contemplating intervention because we just don't like our trade relations. Assad and the Syrian Army are massacring the people.

Originally Posted by Wagner

Does it matter if they're lovers of democracy?

It's not like we're contemplating intervention because we just don't like our trade relations. Assad and the Syrian Army are massacring the people.

As a humantarian I would agree.
As an adult who knows people in the neighborhood and guys at the gym who are in the military I first have to know if there's really a difference between the factions and if putting an American life at risk is truly the morally correct thing to do.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Yep



But not the support of a rebellion which grew out of government forces firing upon peaceful protestors?

I don't know. I don't pretend to speak for my entire country, nor do I pretend I have all the facts.

For me, given the information that I do have, which may be misinformation, this is still a syrian problem. I understand the lines can be pretty fine here. An overt ethnic cleansing to me meets a certain standard of behavior. But one can make the justification for entering into the syrian conflict just too easy, set the parameters too broad.

We really cannot be sure that we know the real truth here in who started what. We may not know the entire story. We may only know what we are supposed to know. Do I not trust the news? I don't think anyone should trust that today. After the huge failure of accurate intelligence that led up to the invasion of Iraq, I am really leery of what we supposedly know about the conditions that led up the violence in Syria.

I believe any gov't has the right to put down what they think is a danger to that gov't. We may see that here in the US one day. We have had our own rebellions, the Whiskey Rebellion. I am glad England did not fund or help out those moonshiners. There was a loss of life in that little rebellion as well.

But the way that I feel about these things is colored by what I think our role is in the world. l do not think it is our place to be the world's police force. I do not think we should have our military on 260 bases around the world. I do not think the US can any longer afford to be the world's police force. Not with special interests now basically running this nation. It is too easy for our military to become the military that protects banking and corporate interests, given where this nation has moved in regards to the importance of corporations and banking interests.

Originally Posted by Wagner

Does it matter if they're lovers of democracy?

It's not like we're contemplating intervention because we just don't like our trade relations. Assad and the Syrian Army are massacring the people.

There has always been gov't that has killed its own people. We had our own civil war, and lost more americans than in any of the other wars combined. I am glad europe did not back the south in that era. And I am certainly glad we did not see troops from all over europe landing at New Orleans or Mobile to reinforce the South. Obama would perhaps be working a cotton field somewhere if that happened.

Perhaps our best interest lies in just allowing those arabs and middle easterners in thinning themselves out. Less for us to kill later on. It seems no matter who ends up in power, they are not really fond of americans, are they? The new ones that replace the old ones don't seem to be any better than the ones they replaced.

Originally Posted by Wagner

Yes, supporting the removal of a government that has begun slaughtering its own mostly defenseless people is cheerleading.

:rolleyes:

ahoy Wagner,

fair enough matey...if ye agree with the edicts 'o Captain Obama in the realm 'o foreign policy, ye coulda just said so.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Wagner

Does it matter if they're lovers of democracy?

It's not like we're contemplating intervention because we just don't like our trade relations. Assad and the Syrian Army are massacring the people.

ahoy Wagner,

Assad and the Syrian army, from thar point 'o view, are puttin' down a rebellion and attemptin' to restore order. the idear 'o government's slaughterin' thar civilians be neither new or novel, nor be it isolated to Syria. if the "moral imperitive" be the rule 'o the day, why not start in Africa? the entire world be focused on the Middle East, afterall.

- MeadHallPirate